The Great Marital Recession: Why Fewer People Are Saying “I Do”?

Socratic Dialogue

By Plutonix

The philosopher Socrates once defined the “good life”; now, he grapples with its modern decline. On the bustling waterfront of Port Louis, he confronts his companion, Cephalus, with the puzzle of the dwindling “I Do.” As Mauritius records a sharp decline in civil marriage, this Socratic Dialogue investigates the paradox of a society that proclaims the value of family but systemically undermines its foundational commitment.

Setting: A sunny afternoon on the waterfront of Port Louis, Mauritius. As Socrates (aged but eternally curious) and his affluent contemporary, Cephalus (now a successful, if slightly exasperated, Mauritian businessman), are observing a modern couple taking a selfie by the Caudan water-wheel, their conversation quickly turns to the Great Marital Recessionin Mauritius.

Socrates: My dear Cephalus, tell me, what wisdom does the modern age offer on the nature of commitment? I observe these young couples — they cling to one another like barnacles to a hull, yet they seem to avoid that sacred, time-honoured declaration known as the ‘marriage’, which your local papers report is dwindling faster than the mango supply in December.

Cephalus: Ah, Socrates, you speak of the Great Marital Recession, as I call it. The numbers are clear: fewer people here in Mauritius say, ‘I do.’ Back in the 90s, we had over 11,000 unions annually; now, we barely scrape past 8,000. It’s a global trend, of course, but here it hits particularly close to home. They say the institution is “in search of meaning.”

Socrates: “In search of meaning”? But surely marriage was the meaning! It was the pillar, the safe harbour for the soul. Yet, if I understand the sociologists correctly, the young are now prioritizing their “personal accomplishment, careers, and studies.” Tell me, are these pursuits inherently antagonistic to sharing a wardrobe and a surname?

Cephalus: The young believe so, Socrates. There are sociologists who are now saying that they approach marriage “under a more pragmatic angle.” It’s not just about love; it’s a social and economic contract. And contracts, I find, are best avoided if the terms are too binding.

Socrates: Ah, the contract. A document written by lawyers for the inevitable divorce. But if the goal is security, why abandon the institution that historically provided security? Does this fear stem from the partner, or the cohabitation?

Cephalus: People who are in close contact with young women at the local university suggest a shift, especially for women. Many women, they say, are now avoiding commitment due to fear of “conjugal violence, drugs, and precarity.” They choose to become “independent, launching their own activities… becoming their own husband,” as they humorously put it.

Socrates: A magnificent, if slightly tragic, observation! So, the women, having grown wiser and more self-sufficient, look at the potential spouse and calculate, “Is this man an asset, or a liability that must be managed?” If the historical male role was to provide stability, and if he now offers instability, why would a rational, educated woman choose to chain herself to a sinking ship? The modern woman has achieved independence, only to discover that the modern man often hasn’t!

Cephalus: Precisely. But there is a second major affliction: Economics. The cost of living, the price of housing — these are soaring higher than a kite at Le Morne. Sociologists say getting married is seen as “investing, making expenditures, contracting debts.” It is a psychological and economic pressure too great for them to bear.

Socrates: So, the vow of eternal love is being usurped by the vow of eternal debt! The young wait for “better economic stability,” delaying marriage perhaps indefinitely. But what of those who do marry? The sad thing though is that one in three marriages ends in divorce here. Why such immediate disappointment?

Cephalus: A lack of emotional and psychological preparation, it seems. They rush into the arrangement with fluffy expectations — perhaps influenced by the idealized, unstable models they see on their ‘social networks’ — only to find that marriage requires maturity, communication, and a real responsibility. They view it as a constraint, not a considered choice.

Socrates: I see. So, they rush toward the finish line — the wedding day — believing it to be the beginning of bliss, only to find it is the beginning of the real work. They haven’t been taught that the wedding is merely the launch of the ship, and the marriage is the lifetime of navigation through storms. But Cephalus, what about the global trend, as reported by global media? They worry about a “relationship recession” leading to a catastrophic decline in the birth rate.

Cephalus: Yes, this is the gravest implication. Economists argue that marriage is fundamentally an “assurance function” for the family. It provides the material security and formalized commitment necessary for the difficult, long-term task of raising children.

Socrates: So, the government worries about the birth rate but avoids the real cause! Instead of simply subsidizing children after they arrive, the evidence suggests they should be subsidizing the marriage itself!

Cephalus: The Hungarians and Swedes, bless their bureaucratic hearts, discovered this. By offering significant tax advantages for married couples, they boosted the marriage rate, and after a lag, the birth rate followed. It appears that when the state imposes a “marriage penalty” — making it financially easier to remain single or cohabiting — it acts directly against its own demographic health!

Socrates: Fascinating! So, we have two forces destroying the pillar of society: A liberated, discerning woman who wisely avoids instability, and a foolish, self-sabotaging state that financially penalizes its own citizens for making a stable, pro-natal choice!

Cephalus: A grim summary, Socrates. The young seek freedom and self-fulfilment outside the traditional structure, while economic pressures — the debt, the housing crisis — drive them toward cohabitation or remaining single, which are statistically less favourable for raising children.

Socrates:And so, Cephalus, as the sun begins to set over this thriving port, we conclude our inquiry not with a romantic flourish, but with a stark, pragmatic equation. The “Great Marital Recession” in Mauritius is not merely a crisis of the heart; it is a failure of stability—a societal penalty imposed upon commitment.
Until then, these young men will continue to find their ‘network’ on their phones, and these women will remain their own, capable, but lonely, “husbands.” Let us find some good Mauritian coffee; my contemplation has made me thirsty.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 October 2025